US Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade

Agreed, the 12 week limit along with the 3 day 'cooling off' (what misogynistic wanker thought that up?) and the strange way 12 weeks are counted are all a mess. The limit should be 24 weeks.

But, this is the US thread not the Abortion thread, which is a better place to talk about the laws in Ireland.

One point you make, though:

Umm... surely that was a small point of criticism in 1983? The move to repeal it began then, didn't it?

As they say, "time will tell." I think the Democratic party and women in general are going to push hard about this issue through the midterms and beyond. Sure seems like there are signs of just that already. It's early, and the decision isn't official yet, it might change. Perhaps the references to common law from 1673 will be dropped, those are laughable.

You're the one asking for sources for some reason breaking up the flow.

Don't be ridiculous, I would never ask for sources. It ruins the discussion and the banter.

Ahh wait now, if you’re going to be a stickler for what the thread is or isn’t about, then surely the thread isn’t about criticism of US conservatives, it’s about this -

US Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade

shrug Conservatives in the US are all about making responsible decisions. Choosing to have a child is the ultimate in decisions and it shouldn't be taken away from women. Especially by the Federal government.

I agree with what I think you're saying. Roe v. Wade has allowed the government to abdicate it's responsibility here. It rightly should be ensconced in the Constitution once and for all. Along with Healthcare.

It’s only arguing in favour of choice if people aren’t forced to choose between between their family and not being able to have more children due to socioeconomic circumstances.

It’s for this reason that it’s easy to convince people who aren’t in that position, that the people who are, have no choice and should be provided with the opportunity to avail of abortion, as opposed to arguing that those people should be provided with the means to enable them to be in a position to support and provide for any or as many children as they choose to have.

If people are meant to have choice, it should mean the choices they make for themselves and their families, as opposed to being coerced into an outcome being portrayed as a choice. It would be akin to me establishing a bookies beside a gamblers anonymous group in a socioeconomically deprived neighbourhood and suggesting to anyone who had an objection that “I’m just giving gamblers a choice”.

The disingenuous reasoning should be obvious.

I'm very much lost to the point you are trying to make. I don't know of anyone suggesting that if you are too poor you need to abort your pregnancy, but that seems to be your insinuation here, that the Pro-Choice movement wants to encourage someone who wants a pregnancy, to abort, because of socioeconomic factors:

Nah, that’s more of a by-product, as it were. The problem with their argument is that it hasn’t been borne out by reality. Every year the same issues are identified as to why women are having abortions (previously listed in the thread), and socioeconomic deprivation is the main reason. To suggest that any woman who is experiencing socioeconomic deprivation should have “the choice” to have an abortion, is addressing the symptoms, not the underlying cause.

It's like you dismiss the possibility that perhaps millions of women are already providing and supporting for the amount of children they already chose to have, which is Zero.

It’s not like that at all though 😂

That’s the sort of logical conclusion I’d expect of someone arguing that people with no children should be entitled to parental leave.

(obviously not an issue in the US, because of FAML, but I think you get the point)

Well they are, even if they choose not to have kids. You act as though you've never heard of nor taken a smoke break as a non-smoker, a coffee/tea break as a non-drinker, etc. so you understand the straight logic there. I have FMLA rights even if I don't have a Family. Hence the 14th Amendment, Equal Protection, Privacy.

I’ve heard of them, I just don’t take their argument any more seriously than I take the argument that people who aren’t parents should be entitled to parental leave.

Sure you could lump all of that under "socioeconomics" etc but it doesn't really tell the narrative that politicos want to sell.

Won’t cite the whole paragraph as I’m thinking you may wish to delete it later for privacy reasons, but yes, you could lump any of those reasons under socioeconomic circumstances, and it wouldn’t tell the narrative that the politicos want to tell. They’ve got plenty of their own in any case, just as gut-wrenching. They’re the basis of social policies though, not the law. It’s one thing that people have the right to privacy, it’s something else entirely whether or not they have a right to avail of an abortion, and under what circumstances is an abortion permitted to be performed by qualified medical professionals.

(FWIW, I argued in favour of the “Childfree by Choice” forum on here. Not the name I’d have gone with, but in practice it amounts to the same idea, I wasn’t going to quibble over the details)

I do hope that Mississippi actually do get the finger out, and ensure that among generations to come that it isn’t necessary for women to be forced into making the decision to have an abortion because they aren’t in a position to support themselves and their families. Far more women in those circumstances are having abortions than the wedge issue of children being raped by their fathers being used to argue it’s a private matter.

Nobody has argued that, least of all in the thread. Nor did I suggest you take family leave if you aren't the parent or guardian.

I think I may have misinterpreted what you meant here then when I referred to parental leave, and then I remembered you’re in the US, where the equivalent of parental leave is FML -

It's like you dismiss the possibility that perhaps millions of women are already providing and supporting for the amount of children they already chose to have, which is Zero.

-

It’s not like that at all though 😂 

That’s the sort of logical conclusion I’d expect of someone arguing that people with no children should be entitled to parental leave.

(obviously not an issue in the US, because of FAML, but I think you get the point)

-

Well they are, even if they choose not to have kids. You act as though you've never heard of nor taken a smoke break as a non-smoker, a coffee/tea break as a non-drinker, etc. so you understand the straight logic there. I have FMLA rights even if I don't have a Family.

This sort of thing:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/05/technology/parents-time-off-backlash.html

If Mississippi were to introduce policies which address the issue of higher maternal and infant mortality rates among the black population, and white people started claiming discrimination because they weren’t being treated equally, I’d wonder were they a bit special tbh.

https://m.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2019/may/23/mississippi-debates-abortion-maternal-mortality-re/

The nuns found in 1950s and 60s Ireland that nobody wanted to buy adopt the babies that were a bit brown. Hopefully won't be an issue in Alito's racially tolerant and oh so caring American Utopia just around the corner...

Even worse is his invocation of Matthew Hale. Absolutely horrendous stuff.